PepsiCo doesn't send someone to court resulting in $1.26 BILLION judgment!

[tricky_ab]

What's the cost of not showing up to court? For PepsiCo Inc., it's a $1.26 billion default judgment. A Wisconsin state court socked the company with the monster award in a case alleging that PepsiCo stole the idea to bottle and sell purified water from two Wisconsin men.

Now the company is scrambling to salvage the situation. The damages award was handed down on Sept. 30. PepsiCo filed motions to vacate the order and dismiss the claims on Oct. 13, saying it wasn't even aware of the lawsuit until Oct. 6.

The litigation began in April when Charles Joyce and James Voigt sued the soft drink maker and two of its distributors, alleging they had misappropriated trade secrets from confidential discussions the plaintiffs had with the distributors in 1981 about selling purified water. The information was illicitly passed to PepsiCo, which used it to develop and sell Aquafina bottled water, the plaintiffs allege in the case filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County before Judge Jacqueline Erwin.

In court documents, PepsiCo argues it was improperly served with the Wisconsin lawsuit in North Carolina, but also asks the court to excuse the corporate bureaucracy that buried a legal document for weeks. While plaintiffs say they served the lawsuit in June on PepsiCo's registered agent in North Carolina, where the company is incorporated, PepsiCo says its law department at the company's Purchase, N.Y.-based headquarters was not notified until September.

"The bottom line is there was a defect in the process for us, but also for" the plaintiffs, said PepsiCo spokesman Joe Jacuzzi, who called the case "highly dubious."

Robert Roth, a lawyer for PepsiCo at Menomonee, Wis.-based Niebler, Pyzyk, Roth & Carrig, couldn't be reached for comment. Another lawyer for PepsiCo, Dean Panos, a partner at Chicago-based Jenner & Block, declined to comment.

In court papers, PepsiCo claims it first received a legal document related to the case from the North Carolina agent on Sept. 15 when a copy of a co-defendant's letter was forwarded to Deputy General Counsel Tom Tamoney in PepsiCo's law department. Tamoney's secretary, Kathy Henry, put the letter aside and didn't tell anyone about it because she was "so busy preparing for a board meeting," PepsiCo said in its Oct. 13 motion to vacate.

When Henry received a forwarded copy of the plaintiff's motion for default judgment on Oct. 5, she sent that to Yvonne Mazza, a legal assistant for Aquafina matters. Remembering that she still had the other document, Henry passed it to Mazza too. The next day Mazza sent the documents to David Wexler, a department attorney, and he "immediately" called the agent to get a copy of the complaint.

Lawyers for PepsiCo distributors Wis-Pak Inc. and Carolina Canners Inc. made court appearances in June and July. PepsiCo was at a loss to explain why it hadn't heard about the case from them. "It's just another unfortunate thing that didn't come together," Jacuzzi said.

In seeking to dismiss the case, PepsiCo argues that the statute of limitations should preclude the lawsuit, brought 15 years after the company started selling Aquafina and more than two decades after the alleged confidential talks. Moreover, "the $1.26 billion judgment that has been entered is unprecedented in size and justice requires that PepsiCo have a chance to defend itself," the company said.

The lead plaintiffs lawyer, David Van Dyke of Chicago-based Cassiday Schade, said Wisconsin courts have been "pretty clear that they don't like" vacating default judgments. "There is a possibly that a judge may say we're going to litigate the damages aspect of it," Van Dyke said.

A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 6.

Story Here (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Price-to-PepsiCo-for-Not-law-3214509113.html?x=0&.v=1)

How'd you like to be Kathy Henry around now?

[SimpleS14]

That is absurd and it sucks that Kathy Henry is being thrown under the bus. =/

Why the hell would you wait more than TWO DECADES before making such a lawsuit?

Damn sometimes I hate the legality in this country....

[drift freaq]

This pure bullshit and frivolous lawsuit. No one waits 15 years to file a lawsuit unless they are full of shit. That technically does exceed the statue of limitations and that Wisconsin Judge is just trying for publicity to stroke himself.

[ronmcdon]

Judge needs to be shot
The judicial system (when it comes to civil lawsuits) here is a farce.

Why stop 1.26 billion for that matter?

[zenki.life]

15 YEARS????????????


what the fuck

[Pank]

That is absurd and it sucks that Kathy Henry is being thrown under the bus. =/


...she sat on extremely important information regarding a lawsuit FOR A MONTH. During which time Pepsi could have settled out of court and not had a ONE POINT TWO BILLION DOLLAR judgment levied against them.

Now, if this is actually what happened, who knows, but if it is, she is most definitely SO fired.

[ryguy]

Theres no way that judgment should be allowed to stand. Can you appeal a default judgment?

[Bubbles]

Golden rule.

http://www.frigginrandom.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/funny-pictures-disregard-females-acquire-currency.jpg

[Nismo ZJ]

Joe Jacuzzi

Ahhhhahahaha

[Future240]

This will get reversed and probably tossed out. I hate when judges do stupid shit like this.

[Gnnr]

1981! That's 28 years that has to be way pass the statue of limitations. PepsiCo should counter sue and sue the court. I'm pretty sure their high priced lawyers will make toast out of this.

[aziankingz]

joe jacuzzi..thats like what you put in your phone book of the guy who fixes your jacuzzi and his name is joe..

[Ceepo]

How the hell do you say its your idea to bottle water, and if so how do you prove it? This lawsuit is insane, its like me suing my city for stealin my shit when i flush the toilet...

[tricky_ab]

joe jacuzzi..thats like what you put in your phone book of the guy who fixes your jacuzzi and his name is joe..

Or a name that you use in a porno...

How the hell do you say its your idea to bottle water, and if so how do you prove it? This lawsuit is insane, its like me suing my city for stealin my shit when i flush the toilet...

Ingenious isn't it? It's a damn good thing my ancestors invented the wheel. Time to score myself a big paycheck.

[Otto347]

Once again, there needs to be some sort of common sense court that "filters" out this type of horse shit before it even gets a chance......

[tricky_ab]

Once again, there needs to be some sort of common sense court that "filters" out this type of horse shit before it even gets a chance......

Yeah I agree, this is a waste of time and tax payers money for sure...

[ronmcdon]

Once again, there needs to be some sort of common sense court that "filters" out this type of horse shit before it even gets a chance......

The problem with 'common sense' is that it's discretionary.
Courts like to use a similar term called 'reasonable' that's arguably no different.
I you have a judge with little/no 'common sense', it leads to situations like this.
We all know how well that's working.

What needs to be done is establishing clear cut rules.
Put a cap on things that can be sued for once.
I don't agree that you can sue for whatever amount your imagination fancies.

Yes, there are appeals courts.
But best to take care of something from the start,
then to have to drag out to other levels of expensive & 'waste of time' legal battles.

In the end, the lawyers win and everybody else loses.
nothing new.

Yeah I agree, this is a waste of time and tax payers money for sure...

it's not just taxpayer's $$$.
it's also insurance $$$, when Pepsi either can't afford and/or if they front the bill to their insurance co.
it all filters into everyone's cost of doing business.

Theoretically it's not that different from robbing a bank.
Well, it's probably worse since some 'shit-for-brains', unqualified judge is aiding the offenders.

[OptionZero]

The problem with 'common sense' is that it's discretionary.
Courts like to use a similar term called 'reasonable' that's arguably no different.
I you have a judge with little/no 'common sense', it leads to situations like this.
We all know how well that's working.

What needs to be done is establishing clear cut rules.
Put a cap on things that can be sued for once.
I don't agree that you can sue for whatever amount your imagination fancies.

Yes, there are appeals courts.
But best to take care of something from the start,
then to have to drag out to other levels of expensive & 'waste of time' legal battles.

In the end, the lawyers win and everybody else loses.
nothing new.



it's not just taxpayer's $$$.
it's also insurance $$$, when Pepsi either can't afford and/or if they front the bill to their insurance co.
it all filters into everyone's cost of doing business.

Theoretically it's not that different from robbing a bank.
Well, it's probably worse since some 'shit-for-brains', unqualified judge is aiding the offenders.

You sound like someone that knows just enough about the law to sound intelligent when bitching about it. Sorry, but you seem to be a frequent participant in threads involving the legal system. Some of you comments are ok, but comments like the above just make me shake my head.

It's easy to want "clear cut rules" - it's virtually impossible to create such a thing.

Flip through the NFL rule book, and the game of football seems simple enough. Watch a season of football, and try counting how many disputes come up.

Now try creating a fucking legal system for an entire country populated with the most diverse geographic, racial and economic backgrounds on the planet that has to deal with all of those associated disputes. It cannot be done.

But we had to try, and our current court system is what we have come up with. It is not perfect, it can be improved, but certainly not by whining an internet forum when we only know what some reporter told us.

If Pepsi was properly served, and the plaintiffs proved with sufficient certainty the value of their claim, then Pepsi should pony up.

If Pepsi was improperly served and the plaintiffs' damages were not properly established, then the default judgment will be reversed and the parties can proceed with this litigation.

There's nothing we've read that said the justice system failed - only that it's possible some of the participants are incredibly stupid (namely, Pepsi, if their internal communication system is that bad).

While you're calling out the judge as an idiot, show me how he chose and applied the law incorrectly, or otherwise did not do his job the way he should have.

Would everyone like me to explain why the law of civil procedure provides for default judgments?

[ronmcdon]

For sure the details presented in the said article is scant,
particulary what is defined by 'trade secrets' to make Aquafina.
I think we can only go by casual intrepretation of the info provided.

Apprently there does seem to be some trade secrets to the water,
but again there is no mention of what 'secrets' are in question.

Aquafina uses PepsiCo's own seven-step purification system, which it calls HydRO-7, which includes pre-filtration treatment to remove larger particles, two stages of polishing filtering, charcoal filtration, reverse osmosis, ultraviolet and ozone sterilization [2]. PepsiCo states in marketing material that this system removes substances that may be in other brands of bottled water.

Aquafina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquafina)

[g6civcx]

In seeking to dismiss the case, PepsiCo argues that the statute of limitations should preclude the lawsuit, brought 15 years after the company started selling Aquafina and more than two decades after the alleged confidential talks.

The law in question:

An action under s. 134.90 shall be commenced within 3 years after the misappropriation of a trade secret is discovered or should have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence. A continuing misappropriation constitutes a single claim.

"But the plaintiffs' lead attorney, David Van Dyke of Cassiday Schade in Chicago, said in an interview that the statute of limitations should be tolled because the plaintiffs did not discover the infringement until much later."

The clock starts from the moment the plaintiff actually knows, or should have known within reasonable measures.

Pepsi can successfully rebut by showing one of the following:

1) the plaintiff knew much earlier than when they said they found out (3 years prior), or
2) the plaintiff should have known much earlier (3 years prior).

If they can do this, the case will be thrown out due to the statute of limitation on trade secret.

Yeah I agree, this is a waste of time and tax payers money for sure...

For a criminal trial, the taxpayers (as represented by the prosecutor) and the defendant pay court cost.

For a civil trial, the plaintiff and the defendant pay court cost.

Since this is a civil trial, no taxpayer money is spent. Instead, private money is being used to pay for the courts. In a way, taxpayer money is being saved.

Therefore, there is no taxpayer money wasted since no taxpayer money is spent.


The reality is quite to the contrary. If your only goal is to save taxpayer money, we need more frivolous lawsuits. The money would pay for the courts with possible profits.

[OptionZero]

And the lawyers that "win" here are going to spend the money buying things made by companies who in turn pay their employees who buy more stuff . . .

It's all part of the economy. Don't people watch South Park?

[g6civcx]

It's easy to want "clear cut rules" - it's virtually impossible to create such a thing.

Now try creating a fucking legal system for an entire country populated with the most diverse geographic, racial and economic backgrounds on the planet that has to deal with all of those associated disputes. It cannot be done.

But we had to try, and our current court system is what we have come up with. It is not perfect, it can be improved, but certainly not by whining an internet forum when we only know what some reporter told us.

I don't mind complexity if there is clarity. The legal system as it currently exists is complex without clarity.

Stupid people critique the complexity just because they can't understand anything. Smart people critique the clarity, or lack thereof.

I'd at least give him credit for doing the second.

If Pepsi was improperly served and the plaintiffs' damages were not properly established, then the default judgment will be reversed and the parties can proceed with this litigation.

Would everyone like me to explain why the law of civil procedure provides for default judgments?

I would. Can the default judgement be considered punitive in any way?

[g6civcx]

And the lawyers that "win" here are going to spend the money buying things made by companies who in turn pay their employees who buy more stuff . . .



You don't ever need an attorney. Anything a lawyer can do when representing you you can do yourself.

Now whether you have the intelligence and experience to adequately defend yourself is a different story.

[OptionZero]

I don't mind complexity if there is clarity. The legal system as it currently exists is complex without clarity.

Stupid people critique the complexity just because they can't understand anything. Smart people critique the clarity, or lack thereof.

I'd at least give him credit for doing the second.



I would. Can the default judgement be considered punitive in any way?

If you're asking whether default judgments can include punitive damages, I don't know. If I recall from Civ Pro, punitive damages require a greater burden of proof to be met and a finding of malice. Is due process satisfied on the defendant's side if he's forced to pay punitives? I'm sure there's case law on it, but I'm not logging onto WL right not to look it up.

If you're asking whether default judgments serve a punitive purpose, then sure, they "punish" a party for failing to answer a complaint. By removing that party's chance to response, there's certainly a price being paid for lack of diligence.

It would certainly not make sense if a defendant could ignore a noticed, properly pleaded complaint. Otherwise, parties could avoid litigation just by standing pat. The notice requirements of the FRCP and local RCP's set forth all the things a plaintiff must do to give constitutionally and statutorily proper notice; both sides know the rules. The party that fails to "play" by the rules forfeits something, in this case, it's potentially a fat load of cash.

You don't ever need an attorney. Anything a lawyer can do when representing you you can do yourself.

Now whether you have the intelligence and experience to adequately defend yourself is a different story.

I don't agree entirely. There are some things attorneys bring to the table that ordinary people cannot. An attorney has, theoretically, been trained to advocate on paper and through oral argument; he is required to comply with the code of ethics and whatever rules imposed upon him by the local courts.

By definition, a layperson is one who lacks that training is starting far, far behind in any litigation. His ability to present his case, even if meritorious, is severely diminished. Moreover, the legal system is not well served by having to deal with teaching a layman how to accomplish basic procedures (how to write a brief; how to argue in court, the evidence code, etc). Everyone might be entitled to their day in court; they are not entitled to a lesson in legal research, writing, analysis, evidence, and court room etiquette.

Are there shitty lawyers who aren't adding anything to a party's case? Hell yes, but that speaks more to the failure of their schooling and mentors than to the existence of the profession or judicial system as a whole. If you wanna talk about how flawed law school is, thats gonna take its own thread.

Beyond all the flashy suits and clever legal jargon, however, i believe that an attorney is ultimately being paid for one thing:

His decision making ability, judgment, and counsel.

It is the product of an attorney's knowledge of the law, ability to analyze that law, application of facts to that law, then weighing all other factors to come to a calculation of what can and will happen and what his client should do that is most important.

I work in a district attorney's office. I want to be a district attorney.

I am required to be innately familiar with the evidence code, to be able to elicit direct testimony from my witnesses, cross examine opposing witnesses, protect the defendant's constitutional rights, and represent the interests of society (and to some extent, the victims specifically).

Joe Schmoe could probably pick up some skills, but at the end of the day, I am a good DA or a bad DA based on the decisions I make.

Do I issue a complaint against this defendant? If so, what do I charge? What can I prove, how do it? Should this person be prosecuted, to what degree?

A civil attorney has different decisions to make, but he is paid to fulfill a similar role. Make good choices using all the training and experience he's accumulated as an attorney.

We as attorneys are paid to consider everything that a lay person would, plus everything that a lay person should have considered, plus a few things that insane people would.

[g6civcx]

If you're asking whether default judgments can include punitive damages, I don't know.

This is what I am asking. State law varies so much that I don't even bother to keep up.

I don't agree entirely. There are some things attorneys bring to the table that ordinary people cannot. An attorney has, theoretically, been trained to advocate on paper and through oral argument; he is required to comply with the code of ethics and whatever rules imposed upon him by the local courts.

By definition, a layperson is one who lacks that training is starting far, far behind in any litigation. His ability to present his case, even if meritorious, is severely diminished. Moreover, the legal system is not well served by having to deal with teaching a layman how to accomplish basic procedures (how to write a brief; how to argue in court, the evidence code, etc). Everyone might be entitled to their day in court; they are not entitled to a lesson in legal research, writing, analysis, evidence, and court room etiquette.

Are there shitty lawyers who aren't adding anything to a party's case? Hell yes, but that speaks more to the failure of their schooling and mentors than to the existence of the profession or judicial system as a whole. If you wanna talk about how flawed law school is, thats gonna take its own thread.

Beyond all the flashy suits and clever legal jargon, however, i believe that an attorney is ultimately being paid for one thing:

His decision making ability, judgment, and counsel.

It is the product of an attorney's knowledge of the law, ability to analyze that law, application of facts to that law, then weighing all other factors to come to a calculation of what can and will happen and what his client should do that is most important.

I work in a district attorney's office. I want to be a district attorney.

I am required to be innately familiar with the evidence code, to be able to elicit direct testimony from my witnesses, cross examine opposing witnesses, protect the defendant's constitutional rights, and represent the interests of society (and to some extent, the victims specifically).

Joe Schmoe could probably pick up some skills, but at the end of the day, I am a good DA or a bad DA based on the decisions I make.

We as attorneys are paid to consider everything that a lay person would, plus everything that a lay person should have considered, plus a few things that insane people would.

We're arguing semantics at this point.

I meant to say that the only thing the power of attorney brings to the table is attorney-client confidentiality.

Compare a pro se with a party with legal representation. There is nothing the attorney can legally do that the pro se can't do, if the pro se knows how to do it.

The only difference is now we have another party so the confidentiality comes in, but this has no advantage over the pro se since the pro se need not share information with anyone.

Read the second part of my statement above. What you're really buying is the ability to know the law, understand the law, and apply the law through legal training.

Sure, a regular layperson can spend about 5-10 years to learn the same. I agree that it would not be efficient though.

I train junior attorneys for a living. Any attorney would need to graduate from law school, pass the bar, and practise for maybe 5 years under the supervision of a senior partner before you fully understand the system.

I arguably understand the law better than 90% of the practising attorneys, I am no slouch at arguments, and I excel at the appellate level.

Still, I always, always retain legal counsel to represent me in any legal manners, even if the attorney is ultimately just my puppet.

For business purposes, I do not rely on attorney for strategy. I bring them the strategy and they implement my strategy at my direction. You're in criminal so you may not be familiar with corporate stuff.

The bottom line is people put too much faith in lawyers and doctors in general. They think that all lawyers somehow would know the magical answer to their problem.

I say work with your attorney with eyes wide open and be prepared for anything. Your attorney should serve your will, and their legal counsel should be weighted against your own best judgement.

[g6civcx]

There is nothing the attorney can legally do that the pro se can't do, if the pro se knows how to do it.

I take this back. The local district attorney has a de facto policy of never plea bargaining with pro se defendants. She won't even take your appointment unless you have legal representation.

I'm not sure what her position is on pro se attorneys though. I need to ask her.

[ronmcdon]

You sound like someone that knows just enough about the law to sound intelligent when bitching about it. Sorry, but you seem to be a frequent participant in threads involving the legal system. Some of you comments are ok, but comments like the above just make me shake my head.

It's easy to want "clear cut rules" - it's virtually impossible to create such a thing.

Flip through the NFL rule book, and the game of football seems simple enough. Watch a season of football, and try counting how many disputes come up.

Now try creating a fucking legal system for an entire country populated with the most diverse geographic, racial and economic backgrounds on the planet that has to deal with all of those associated disputes. It cannot be done.

But we had to try, and our current court system is what we have come up with. It is not perfect, it can be improved, but certainly not by whining an internet forum when we only know what some reporter told us.

If Pepsi was properly served, and the plaintiffs proved with sufficient certainty the value of their claim, then Pepsi should pony up.

If Pepsi was improperly served and the plaintiffs' damages were not properly established, then the default judgment will be reversed and the parties can proceed with this litigation.

There's nothing we've read that said the justice system failed - only that it's possible some of the participants are incredibly stupid (namely, Pepsi, if their internal communication system is that bad).

While you're calling out the judge as an idiot, show me how he chose and applied the law incorrectly, or otherwise did not do his job the way he should have.

Would everyone like me to explain why the law of civil procedure provides for default judgments?

I'm skeptical of the judge not calling this case out as a frivolous lawsuit.
Its more about the likelihood that it would have expired the statute of limitations.
It's not reasonable that it would take 15 years to recognize the plaintiff's presumed financial damages (if there were any to begin with).

Admittedly, I don't know what are the specific time limits WI law,
but it would seem pretty far fetched that something spanning from 15 yrs ago wouldn't get tossed.
(maybe you have access to the specific info?)

statute of limitations: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/statute-of-limitations)

Civil Actions

In determining which statute of limitations will control in a civil action, the type of cause of action that the claim will be pursued under is critical. States establish different deadlines depending on whether the cause of action involves a contract, personal injury, libel, fraud, or other claim.

Once the cause of action is determined, the date of the injury must be fixed. A cause of action ordinarily arises when the party has a right to apply to the proper court for relief. Some states, for example, require a person to bring a lawsuit for breach of contract within six years from the date the contract was breached. The action cannot be started until the contract has actually been violated, even though serious disagreements between the parties might have occurred earlier. Conversely, the time limit within which to bring an action for fraud does not begin until the fraud has been discovered.

I'm not saying the actual argument behind the claim was invalid.
As mentioned prior, the actual details behind exactly what 'trade secrets' (and how the loss was somehow calculated) isn't disclosed by the said article.
In suppose also that "2 men from Wisconsin" could somehow posses trade secrets worth billions, but it seems un-plausible without further details.

Agreed there is nothing to say that the justice system failed.
If WI rules are lax enough to permit over 15yrs to pass before the statute of limitations take effect,
the judge could theoretically be following procedure without error.
I agree I jumped to conclusions there without more substantial info.

[g6civcx]

I'm skeptical of the judge not calling this case out as a frivolous lawsuit

There are consequences for the judge in declaring any suit frivolous. Judges are politicians as well so they have to be careful how they rule.

Its more about the likelihood that it would have expired the statute of limitations.
It's not reasonable that it would take 15 years to recognize the plaintiff's presumed financial damages (if there were any to begin with).

Admittedly, I don't know what are the specific time limits WI law,
but it would seem pretty far fetched that something spanning from 15 yrs ago wouldn't get tossed.
(maybe you have access to the specific info?)

See my post above. 3 years from the date you know or should have reasonably known about the infringement.


In suppose also that "2 men from Wisconsin" could somehow posses trade secrets worth billions, but it seems un-plausible without further details.

What do the gender and residence have to do with possessing trade secrets?

Agreed there is nothing to say that the justice system failed.
If WI rules are lax enough to permit over 15yrs to pass before the statute of limitations take effect,
the judge could theoretically be following procedure without error.
I agree I jumped to conclusions there without more substantial info.

I agree.

[OptionZero]

I take this back. The local district attorney has a de facto policy of never plea bargaining with pro se defendants. She won't even take your appointment unless you have legal representation.

I'm not sure what her position is on pro se attorneys though. I need to ask her.

A criminal defendant has no constitutional right to a plea bargain. Every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy, fair trial. In other words, no one owes anyone a plea bargain under the constitution (federal).

What do you mean by "appointment"? If you mean setting a time to meet and talk, well, thats up to the DA to manage her schedule. If you mean accepting a defendant's request to represent himself . . . a defendant has a constitutional right to act as his own attorney. No DA can unilaterally block that. There are limits to one's right to appear pro se, such as competency, but a hearing would be required before the court forces counsel upon someone.

[OptionZero]

I'm skeptical of the judge not calling this case out as a frivolous lawsuit.
Its more about the likelihood that it would have expired the statute of limitations.
It's not reasonable that it would take 15 years to recognize the plaintiff's presumed financial damages (if there were any to begin with).

Admittedly, I don't know what are the specific time limits WI law,
but it would seem pretty far fetched that something spanning from 15 yrs ago wouldn't get tossed.
(maybe you have access to the specific info?)

statute of limitations: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/statute-of-limitations)

Civil Actions

In determining which statute of limitations will control in a civil action, the type of cause of action that the claim will be pursued under is critical. States establish different deadlines depending on whether the cause of action involves a contract, personal injury, libel, fraud, or other claim.

Once the cause of action is determined, the date of the injury must be fixed. A cause of action ordinarily arises when the party has a right to apply to the proper court for relief. Some states, for example, require a person to bring a lawsuit for breach of contract within six years from the date the contract was breached. The action cannot be started until the contract has actually been violated, even though serious disagreements between the parties might have occurred earlier. Conversely, the time limit within which to bring an action for fraud does not begin until the fraud has been discovered.

I'm not saying the actual argument behind the claim was invalid.
As mentioned prior, the actual details behind exactly what 'trade secrets' (and how the loss was somehow calculated) isn't disclosed by the said article.
In suppose also that "2 men from Wisconsin" could somehow posses trade secrets worth billions, but it seems un-plausible without further details.

Agreed there is nothing to say that the justice system failed.
If WI rules are lax enough to permit over 15yrs to pass before the statute of limitations take effect,
the judge could theoretically be following procedure without error.
I agree I jumped to conclusions there without more substantial info.

The judge isn't a stranger reading about a mere summary of the facts on the internet when he decides whether a claim is frivolous.

Moreover, would you want[/] judges exercising a dismissal power in such a manner? Hell no, especially not if you were a plaintiff. Access to the courts is a principle upon which this nation was founded.

The reason why we have the justice system is to distill the truth from what is claimed and what appears on first impression. Jumping to conclusions is the opposite of why judges and lawyers exist. Admittedly, it can cause frustration when [I]seemingly clear cut answers and solutions can be had . . . but the reality is that seldom are cases simple or clear cut.

It is the process that our laws require that sets us apart from animals or anarchy.

[1quk240]

They waited that long so they could get more money. Its almost the same thing that happend to the WWE. The WWF(world wildlife fund) waited YEARS then sued for copywrite infridgement. because they were around before the WWF but nobody really knew of them

[OptionZero]

You don't get more damages by waiting.

Even an injured party is obligated to mitigate damages by taking all reasonable steps to cover or reduce the injury they suffer.

Damages must also be proven with certainty. Damages cannot be speculative.

Lastly, as G6 has pointed out repeatedly, the statute of limitations begins to run when the allegedly injured party knew or should have known about the injury. That is why statutes of limitations exist at all - so parties don't sit around waiting to initiate litigation to capitalize on the mere passage of time.

[g6civcx]

A criminal defendant has no constitutional right to a plea bargain. Every criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy, fair trial. In other words, no one owes anyone a plea bargain under the constitution (federal).

Correct. It wouldn't make sense otherwise because trials would be obselete.

That said, I try to simplify the issues as much as possible before trial. If we can come to an agreement there is no point in trying the issue.

We do, however, seek court guidance on issues that are vague and/or controversial. With these issues, even though we may agree on how the law should be applied, I would push the client to pursue court action to get guidance.

What do you mean by "appointment"? If you mean setting a time to meet and talk, well, thats up to the DA to manage her schedule.

This.

If you mean accepting a defendant's request to represent himself . . . a defendant has a constitutional right to act as his own attorney. No DA can unilaterally block that. There are limits to one's right to appear pro se, such as competency, but a hearing would be required before the court forces counsel upon someone.

Not this, but recently the DC sniper case is on appeal for inadequate counsel. This is the reason why I want to be a criminal defense attorney.

If you get the best attorney and still get convicted, you have no room for appeal.

The public just thinks defense attorneys are scum. They don't understand why good defense attorneys are necessary.

[OptionZero]

Good defense attorneys are necessary to make sure prosecutors don't get lazy. I'm in such an office. There are good attorneys and bad attorneys, but most have their moments either way. Laziness is when problems crop up, so you have to stay on your toes and put in your work in every case, much like in any other job.

Problems occur on the defense side when defense attorneys try to substitute passion for competence. Desire to defend your client does not mean you do not need to know the law, and it's shocking how much bullshit I've seen pulled in the guise of "zeal" for their sense of justice. As bad it is for a prosecutor to get lazy or arrogant in enforcing the law; it is equally bad for a defense attorney to ignore the law. No one benefits when attorneys don't know what they're doing. Criminal law is complicated enough without having stupidity injected in it.

As an aside, virtually all of the public equates the trial with the most important determination of guilt or innocence. It's really not. The prosecution is the first arbiter of guilt because it must decide whether to file or not. A good prosecutor will accurately evaluate the evidence and consider what, if any, laws have been broken and charge or not charge accordingly.

In an ideal world, the prosecution will win 100% of all cases that proceed to trial. Why? Because they have been able to determine who is innocent and who is guilty; the innocent people are never charged at all or dismissed at an earl stage, thereby never reaching trial; only the guilty get charged, make it to trial, and the prosecution successfully and properly presents all the evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Reality doesn't work like that because humans aren't perfect and CSI is just a TV show. We don't get evidence that paints perfectly clear pictures and therefore human judgment enters the equation.

Thus we strive to do as best we can, dismissing cases that cannot be proven (even if there are some people who are guilty of something) because there's no way to make our burden, and bringing some cases against some people who are innocent (or at least not guilty of everything charged) because the evidence supports such an action (as near to reasonable doubt as we can estimate).

Lastly, public perception of the criminal justice system is skewed because they evaluate success or failure (or right or wrong outcomes) based solely on whether someone is guilty or not. Guilt is not a yes or not question; just as important is asking what is someone guilty of?

It is very possible to be guilty of burglary and not assault, or robbery but not murder. Getting that right is crucial, both to uphold the integrity of the justice system, and because of sentencing implications.

The media does not do a good enough job of education people of those details. Wish we could teach it in schools, its important to know since it impacts everyone and politics.

[OptionZero]

Correct. It wouldn't make sense otherwise because trials would be obselete.

That said, I try to simplify the issues as much as possible before trial. If we can come to an agreement there is no point in trying the issue.

We do, however, seek court guidance on issues that are vague and/or controversial. With these issues, even though we may agree on how the law should be applied, I would push the client to pursue court action to get guidance.



This.



Not this, but recently the DC sniper case is on appeal for inadequate counsel. This is the reason why I want to be a criminal defense attorney.

If you get the best attorney and still get convicted, you have no room for appeal.

The public just thinks defense attorneys are scum. They don't understand why good defense attorneys are necessary.

I'm not sure what you could do as a criminal defense attorney if someone wants to appear pro per. You have no authority to act on behalf of someone not your client, unless the court appoints you advisory counsel in some capacity. Even then, you don't have the duties and responsibilities you normally would.

I try to be as professional and cordial as possible with opposing (defense) counsel because there is little to be gained with acrimony. I applaud any defense attorney that is good at his job: thorough, knowledgable, and professional as well. I would then have no doubts about any convictions I obtain because defendants rights have been fully protected and a guilty person was properly convicted. Moreover, convicting someone with crappy counsel just means I have to do it again when it gets sent down for a 6th amendment IAC (ineffective assistance of counsel) violation by the appellate court.

I've done appellate work. IAC sucks.